3/3/2015 Another San Francisco Smash and grab

Anti Keynesianism is ripe and rampant on the right wing blogosphere and has been for quite some time. Government investment in our economy after the Great Depression and after WWII gave us a foot up and eventually the greatest middle class in history. That was due to Keynes. Even Nixon proclaimed he was "now a Keynesian".

Supply side economics took over after the oil shock of the 70s and how good did that work for you? Give huge tax breaks to the ubber wealthy and they'll piss what's left over on the rest of us. Trickle down? Right.

To categorize Keynes as leftist shows what a remarkably closed mind one has. He was far from being a leftie. Just because FDR adopted his policies and it worked better than anyone expected is no reason to write it off as leftist.

To say that WWII was the stimulus is a bit naive as it, by itself, is not responsible for it. What we did, economically was the answer, and that was government spending on infrastructure, education, housing and business which helped jump start the economy. If we had chosen to not invest there would have been no growth. I just love revisionists.

Why did we start turning back to Keynes in '07? Why is he getting more and more credit in economic circles. Why are his models being tried again? Why is Krugman making the rounds, globally, lending his expertise to help change the ridiculous course of austerity? Why is it having a positive effect when heeded?

You have Laffer and Moore, on the right, as your gurus and they're always reframing their arguments after being discredited. Add Rand and Ryan for your political equivalents. You can set your clock by them. They're right wing hacks. Paid carnival barkers for right wing think tanks. Now there's an oxymoron.

I'll just keep on following Krugman, Piketty, Stiglitz, Mankiw and others who have a more thoroughly nuanced understanding of the man. I'll keep reading up on those who don't conflate economics with political leanings and on just what works.

All the best,
Nonoise

I know I'm pissing in the wind here, but I'll try once more.

"To say that WWII was the stimulus is a bit naive as it, by itself, is not responsible for it. What we did, economically was the answer, and that was government spending on infrastructure, education, housing and business which helped jump start the economy. If we had chosen to not invest there would have been no growth. I just love revisionists."

Naive that WW2 was the stimulus? You make it sound like this was all a well planned exercise in Keynesian theory, implemented in all its glory for the world to see. Why don't we just stick with the facts. Our country was bombed and as a result, we suffered great losses. We then immediately entered the war (that was not a stimulus). How our government spent its resources was not due to Keynes, Capitalism, Communism, Marxism or any other abstract theory. It was the "How do we get the stuff we need to fight this war, as fast as humanely possible." theory. So all you're doing here is putting a label on something that happened, after the fact. Which brings me to my next, and final point.

"Why did we start turning back to Keynes in '07? Why is he getting more and more credit in economic circles. Why are his models being tried again? Why is Krugman making the rounds, globally, lending his expertise to help change the ridiculous course of austerity? Why is it having a positive effect when heeded?"

Why, why, why, can't you finally give me a simple example of a country using this Keynesian system, that's proven to work so well? This time I'm going to answer the question for you, because you obviously can't.

You're talking out your ass.

You're relabelling WW2 something it was not so you don't look like a jackass for suggesting some silly, unproven, moron theory, knowing full well its never been used successfully by anyone, anywhere.

Zd542,
Calm down. I spoke of the economic steps we took AFTER the war that got us back up and running. You can read a simple sentence or two and not cherry pick stuff out of YOUR ass, can you? Where is your head? Has this been building up for awhile?

You've got to stop reading and listening to your right wing, hate filled gurus and venture out from the dark, damp corners of the internet and get some sunshine which they say has a very antiseptic quality to it. It's not like going to Lourdes but what the hell, you can use some.

Just do a simple and effective thing and goodle Keynesian economics and it's comeback (and while you're at it, it's history) and you'll find a treasure trove of data, not the made up shit your shovel. You''re fingers won't fly off, I promise.

I find it amazing that when it comes to audio, some can wax poetic on the intricacies and nuances of music and it's reproduction to a level that would make Keats blush but when the topic changes to the economy and politics everything turns to black and white and people emulate rabid, barking dogs.

All the best, and the last say I have on this,
Nonoise

Zd542,
As is typical , you and anyone who offers a reasonable, well thought out and intelligent reply and perspective is labeled the by now familiar right wing nut label. He is so tied into a narrow and misguided viewpoint/dogma that alternative opinions can't be acknowledged. Anyway, back to the original topic. Zd542 you made excellent points IMO. I'm out.
Charles,

The game of survival is a dilemma. No one theory or solution is likely to resolve it fully. Too many conflicting factors including human nature. Is a game of give and take.